Skip to main content

Full text of "Opposes reciprocity treaty in the speach before Toronto Board of Trade"

See other formats


Sir GEO. W. ROSS in Speech before Toronto Board of Trade 

Urges Many Reasons Why Canada Should Not Sign 

a Trade Treaty with the United States 

In a speech replete with historical examples and strong 
with the logic of experience, Sir. Geo. W. Ross presented the 
case against reciprocity before the Toronto Board of Trade in 
that city recently. His arguments were strong and his reasoning 




Sir Geo. W. Ross 

Who spoke in Opposition to Reciprocity before the 

Toronto Board of Trade. 

clear. He examined reciprocity from many standpoints, con- 
sidering its effect on Canadian national life, industrial develop- 
ment, and imperial sentiment, and in every case found it wanting. 
His address voiced a strong plea for a uniform national progress. 
He spoke as follows: 

"The negotiation of a reciprocity treaty with the United 
as been a somewhat familiar subject to Canadians for 


3 9004 01511111 


Sir GEO. W. ROSS in Speech before Toronto Board of Trade 

Urges Many Reasons Why Canada Should Not Sign 

a Trade Treaty with the United States 

In a speech replete with historical examples and strong 
with the logic of experience, Sir. Geo. W. Ross presented the 
case against reciprocity before the Toronto Board of Trade in 
that city recently. His arguments were strong and his reasoning 

Sir Geo. W. Ross 

Who spoke in Opposition to Reciprocity before the 

Toronto Board of Trade. 

clear. He examined reciprocity from many standpoints, con- 
sidering its effect on Canadian national life, industrial develop- 
ment, and imperial sentiment, and in every case found it wanting. 
His address voiced a strong plea for a uniform national progress. 
He spoke as follows: 

"The negotiation of a reciprocity treaty with the United 
States has been a somewhat familiar subject to Canadians for 

' ^' - 

two generations. Ever since the repeal of the treaty of 1854, 
over forty years ago, it has been frequently discussed on both 
sides of the line. 

"More than once representatives from Canada have visited 
Washington in the hope that all trade barriers between the two 
countries could be removed and more profitable commercial 
relations established. These pilgrimages, as they were called, 
were very unsatisfactory, and Canada, at last, declared there 
should be no more of them. Now, conditions have changed, 
and Washington approaches Canada with the object of accom- 
plishing that for which we so long labored in vain. And here 
I wish you to notice a peculiarity of the present movement for 
reciprocity. By the adoption of the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill 
the President of the United States was authorized to 
impose a duty of twenty-five per cent, on imports from any 
country that discriminated in its tariff against the United States. 
From reports made to him by officers of the Customs 
Department he evidently concluded that the Canadian tariff 
was at fault, and so communications were opened with 
Ottawa with a view to the removal of the alleged complaint. 
The Canadian Government very properly agreed, and the 
required amendments of the tariff were duly approved. Having 
settled the minor question of discrimination, the next step was 
to propose the larger question of reciprocity. The Republicans 
as a party were far from pleased with the new tariff bill. They 
had promised in the Presidential campaign that the tariff would 
be lowered. This was not done, and could not be done now that 
the Congress had adjourned. But if the President could negotiate 
a treaty for the reduction of duties on both sides of the line, then 
what the party failed to do in Congress would be done to a certain 
extent by treaty. We have, therefore, to consider reciprocity 
not as originating in a desire for better commercial relations with 
Canada, but as the outcome of the political exigencies of the 
Republican party, and we are met with this contingency at the 
outset: that any proposal that may be made to Canada may have 
regard to party exigencies quite as much as to the settlement of 
commercial difficulties. 

Question of Annexation 

"We have also to bear in mind another consideration : there 
still slumbers in the minds of leading Americans the idea that 
Canada will sooner or later, either from choice or necessity, 
become annexed to the United States. It is well known that 
the repeal of the treaty of 1854 was intended to so embarrass 
Canada commercially as to force us into annexation. This view 
was openly expressed by more than one American at the time. 
The Hon. G. S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury in President 
Grant's second Administration, and a member of Congress at 
the time of the repeal of the reciprocity treaty, said : The fact of 
the annexation of Canada to the United States, whether the event 
shall occur in a time near or remote, depends probably upon our 
action on reciprocity. Canada needs our markets and our facilities 

for ocean transportation, and as long as these advantages are 
denied to her she can never attain to a high degree of prosperity. 
The body of farmers, laborers and trading people will favor 
annexation ultimately should the policy of non-intercourse be 
adhered to on our part, and they will outnumber the office-holding 
class, and thus the union of the two countries will be secured.' 

"Non-intercourse was the policy of 1866. Canada needs our 
markets and our ocean ports, and without these she cannot prosper, 
said Secretary Boutwell. The farmer and laborers will favor 
annexation, and so on. Never did Secretary make a greater 
mistake. Canada did need markets and ocean ports and trans- 
portation in those days, but she has found all and more than she 
lost, notwithstanding the deliberate policy of non-intercourse, 
which was intended to make her a suppliant for annexation. 

"Coercion having failed, annexation through commercial 
privileges is then announced. Mr. W. R. Hearst, proprietor 
of The New York American, said a few weeks ago: 'Let us have 
commercial union first, and political union afterwards.' 

Henry M. Whitney's Views 

"In the October number of The Atlantic Monthly there 
appears an able article on reciprocity with Canada by Harry 
M. Whitney, a rich Boston financier, in which he says: 'What 
might ultimately be the political effect of the establishment 
of friendly relations between Canada and the United States is 
a problem that had best be left to work itself out in years to 
come. It is quite possible, I think indeed quite likely, considering 
the number of questions of domestic and foreign policy which 
might arise under such a condition, that the two nations would 
in the end become practically one, but that would be a long way 
in the future, if it ever came to pass at all.' 

"Non-intercourse failed; now the political effect of estab- 
lishing friendly relations should be considered — the two nations 
would in the end become one; reciprocity would be the means 
to that end, though perhaps a long way in the future," and so on. 
Now, if there is one thing more than another that Canadians 
resent it is any imputation of their loyalty; and they would resent 
with equal force any advances for a treaty with the United States 
that openly or by implication suggested annexation. We want 
friendly relations with the United States as with a neighbor of 
great distinction and power, but I hope that this desire will not 
degenerate into subserviency on our part, nor into unwarrantable 
aggression on the part of the United States. 

A Poor Bargain 

"But, assuming that bona fide proposals for reciprocity are 
to be submitted, let me mention a few considerations that require 
the most careful attention. 

"We must not forget that the mere exchange of certain 
articles may involve a great deal more than appears on the sur- 
face. For example — to abolish the duty on wheat on both sides 
of the line looks fair, but to accept an offer of that kind pure and 


simple would, in my opinion, be a poor bargain for Canada. 
I believe that the longer the American tariff of 25 cents a bushel 
on Canadian wheat is maintained the better for us. Canadian 
wheat has now a distinct place in the British market. If the 
market of the United States were freely opened it would be impos- 
sible to maintain its identity in passing through American elevators, 
and Canada would be the loser to the extent of any reduction in 

"A similar observation will apply to flour. Manitoba flour 
usually brings a higher price on Mark Lane than any Ameri- 
can brand. Who could vouch for the genuineness of this brand 
if American wheat moved freely across the border? The poorer 
qualities on the south side of the line would be fortified by the 
products of Canadian mills, and the better qualitities on the north 
side would be deteriorated by mixture from the south. Such an 
interchange would be throwing away all the advantages we possess 
from the great wheat belt of Manitoba and the west. 

Canadian Cheese Pre-eminent 

"In the same way Canadian cheese, after years of experi- 
ment and large expenditure of money, has driven American 
cheese out of the British market. How could this pre-emin- 
ence be preserved if Canadian cheese passed through the hands 
of American shippers over the border? We have, therefore, to 
consider not the first profit, if profit there be, but the ultimate 
effect upon an industry which yields us annually about $30,000,000. 
The advance of a few cents in price in exceptional conditions of 
the market should not dominate the general effect on the large 
aspect of the question and the business interests of all the cheese 
factories of Canada. 

"The question of our lumbering industry has also its future 
aspect. No doubt the admission of lumber into the American 
market free of duty would enhance the value of lumber and 
probably the value of all standing marketable timber in Can- 
ada. But the personal interests of the lumbermen are not 
to be alone considered. One of the greatest questions now before 
the people of Canada is how to conserve their forests. Mr. Clifford 
Sifton, Chairman of the Commission of Natural Resources, 
speaking before the Empire Club on the 20th of October, said: 
'At the end of twenty years the United States would have no timber 
for sale in the ordinary way. In Canada the supply was large, 
but if the supply in the United States ran out, the supply in Canada 
would last the United States for only seven years. The time must 
come, however, when the people of Canada would demand legisla- 
tion prohibiting the export of marketable timber.' This is the 
national view,- and the only view which will do justice to Canadian 
interests. Can this view be maintained under a treaty'? 

Question of Transportation 

"We must also consider whether the general advantage of 
reciprocity in natural products might not be more than counter- 
balanced by the loss to Canada in transportation. We should not 


lose sight of this important fact, that if our natural products are 
freely admitted to the American market the United States railways 
will do a large part of their transportation to the markets of the 
world. On this point hear H. M. Whitney in the article from 
which I have already quoted: 'If we were to admit Canadian grain 
free from tariff charges much of it would stay with us for home con- 
sumption ; a portion of it would go through our ports to foreign 
lands — New York, Portland and Boston are the natural outlets for 
the foreign trade of eastern Canada. The elevators for storing and 
handling Canadian grain should be on this side of the line, and 
the steamers of the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk Pacific 
should in the winter time at least find their home port in Boston, 
New York and Portland.' 

"This clearly means that the transportation of Canadian 
grain would be diverted from the great systems of trans-con- 
tinental railways east and west, which Canada has built or is 
building at enormous expense, to American railways, and that 
the elevators at Chicago, Buffalo, New York and Boston would be 
substituted for the elevators at Winnipeg, Fort William, Midland, 
Port Colborne and Montreal. So says an astute American finan- 
cier. Do we want this? Mr. Whitney says it would be one of 
the advantages to the United States of reciprocity. But the loss 
to our railways would only be part of the loss to Canada. What 
about the loss to the great shipping companies on our lakes and 
canals — the loss from the handling of grain at our elevators and 
railway terminals; the loss to ocean freighters at Montreal, Quebec 
and Halifax; the loss in harbor dues; the loss to the hundreds 
employed in handling freight; the loss to all importers of merchan- 
dise from the abandonment of Canadian ports by ocean steamers; 
the loss of national prestige by our becoming dependent upon the 
ports of the United States for an outlet to the markets of the 
world? What would British capitalists who invested their millions 
in these enterprises think of Canadians who for the petty advantage 
of an interchange of natural products would prejudice investments 
which have proved to be of untold advantage to Canada? These 
are not speculative dangers. We are told by a financier of Boston 
what will happen. Is this the fate which a sensible people should 
desire? Are Canadians prepared to accept all these consequences 
as a matter of course? 

What Would be Gained? 

"Then, is there any object in Canada entering into a treaty 
just now? I am not here considering the entanglements or mis- 
understandings to which it might give rise. I am not considering 
the possible changes in business which it might produce or the 
losses arising out of its possible repeal. What I desire to emphasize 
is the unquestionably prosperous condition of Canada without a 
treaty, and the freedom which we enjoy of adapting our own tariff 
from year to year as our circumstances may warrant. Now we 
are free as to the whole tariff from A to Z. If a treaty is made 
our power as well as our liberty to amend any article in the treaty 


will be lost till it expires, and no matter how irksome, we must 
bear it. No statesmanship, however wise, can always forecast 
the future. 

"In 1866, when the old treaty was repealed, we were poor 
in banking capital, in skilled labor, in agriculture and in manu- 
factures. A treaty then would have afforded some relief. To-day 
conditions are different — different because the repeal of the 
treaty removed every prop on which we had formerly leaned, 
and the true temper of our Anglo-Saxon spirit was roused to action. 
I think no country in the world affords a better illustration 
of public spirit than Canada when the United States, in 1866, 
flung our poverty in our faces and told us our only choice was 
starvation or annexation. It is said that the fabled wrestler 
Anteaus, whom Hercules sought to crush, sprang to his feet when- 
ever his shoulders touched the earth. We touched the earth 
in 1866, but, like Anteaus, we sprang to our feet, and by our 
unaided strength we have made the name of Canada great among 
the nations of the world, and so Hercules now wonders if it would 
not be better for him to pour a libation at our feet than wrestle 
with us in the commercial amphitheatre of this continent. 

Progress of Canada 

"As evidence that Canada has prospered without a treaty, 
I subjoin a few facts, all from official sources:— 

General Statistics of Canadian Development. 

1868 1879 1909 

Population (1881) 3,371,594 4,324,810 7,184 000 

Bank capital paid up $30,289,048 $64,159,000 $97,436,000 

Total bank deposits 37,678,571 79,105,000 771,043,000 

Savings banks 4,361,684 14,705,000 89,382*000 

Fire insurance in force 188,359,809 407,357,000 1,883,459'000 

Life insurance in force 35,680,082 86,273,000 780,370,000 

Mineral production (1886) No return 10,221,000 90,415^000 

Copper (1886) No return 385,000 7*018000 

Gold (1886) No return 1,365,000 9,790'000 

Lead (1887) No return 9,216 1,959 000 

Nickel (1888) No return 498 286 9,461000 

Pig iron (1900) No return 583,158 2,223 000 

Silver (1886) No return 209,000 14'358'000 

Letters sent P.0 18,100,000 43,900,000 414 30l'000 

Coal (1886) No return 3,739,000 24'43l'oOO 

Canal tonnage (1885) No return 3,225,000 24 270'000 

Railway mileage 2,270 6.858 ' 24*104 

Railway earnings 12,116,716 19,925,000 145 046*000 

Tons freight carried No return 8,348,000 66 824*000 

Passengers No return 6,523,000 32',683!oOO 

Total imports 73,459,644 81,964,000 309,756 000 

Total exports 57,567,888 71,491,000 301 358*000 

Forest exports 18,742,625 13,261,000 47*517*000 

Animal produce exports 6,893,167 14,100,000 51 349*000 

Agricultural products exports 12,871,055 19,628,000 71*997*000 

Manufacturers' exports 2,100,411 2,700,000 28*957*000 

Cheese, pounds 4,503,370 46,414,000 164*907*000 

Apples, barrels, exports No return 238,936 1*002*066 

Wheat, bushels, exports 2,284,702 6,610,724 49*137*449 

Flour, barrels, exports. 375,219 574,927 1*738*038 

Wood, pulp, exports (1890) No return 1,168,100 4 306 929 

Liabilities— Business failures (1879) .... No return 29,347,000 13',982'000 

Growth of Manufactures 

"Nor does it appear to me to be necessary that we should 
worry ourselves much over reciprocity in manufactures. The 
Secretary of the Manufacturers' Association said that only three 
per cent, of the imports of the United States from Canada con- 
sisted of manufactured goods. If the Americans want more of 
the excellent products of our factories let them reduce their tariff, 
and I have no doubt many of them will be glad to wear our cotton 
and our woollen goods. But even in spite of our exclusion 
from the United States our factories have prospered, as the following 
table shows: — 

1871 1881 1905 

Food production $56,G89,227 $75,137,755 $173,359,431 

Textiles 24,768,976 41,090,551 85,982,979 

Iron and steel products 13,928,855 16,943,321 53,125,265 

Timber and lumber 41,065,971 55,407,540 112,494,072 

Leather and products of 27,913,809 36,455,776 42,123,007 

Paper and printing 5,199,964 9,560,497 33,738.772 

Liquors and beverages 6,459,443 7,054,050 14,394,319 

Chemicals, etc 5,815,504 8,189,559 15,703,360 

Clay, stone and glass i . . . . 3,482,428 5,729,556 13,986,000 

Metals and products 4,312,720 8,954,032 50,828,968 

Tobacco and manufacture of 2,435,343 3,060,306 15,274,923 

Vehicles for land 5,361.234 10,535,443 37,396,302 

Vessels for water ' 5,410,109 4,317,670 1,943,195 

Miscellaneous 9,483,637 15,866,759 66,294,869 

1 land trades 9,250,534 11,379,250 1,698,195 

Capital employed 77,964,020 165,302,623 833,016,155 

Employees, number 187,942 254,935 383,920 

Salaries and wages 40,851,009 59,400,700 162,175.578 

Value of products 221,617,773 309,676,068 706,446.518 

Canada $92 . 42 

United States 35.59 

Great Britain 105.25 

Increase of Canadian Trade in ten years 1898-1909 88. 14% 

United States 55 . 19% 

Great Britain 37 .81% 

"The only country in the world whose trade increased in 
a greater ratio than that of Canada was Argentina, with a 
percentage of 164.88 per cent. 

United States as a Market 

"But suppose the markets of the United States were thrown 
open to us, would that not greatly enhance our prosperity? The 
United States lie along our border for 4,000 miles, with a population 
of ninety millions. If we have anything to sell, there is an unlimited 
market for us — why not let us enjoy it? This is a fascinating 
picture, but there is another side to it. The boundary is just as 
long for the Americans as for the Canadians, and a reciprocity 
treaty that opened one side of the line would also open the other. 
While our seven millions were getting into the American markets 
with their merchandise the American ninety millions were getting 
into Canada, and the home market, always the best, where not 
glutted with goods, would be rendered practically valueless. The 


fruit grower would find American fruit in the market before him, 
and everywhere so abundant that his trade would be ruined. 
The flour merchant, the seed merchant, the dealer in provisions, 
such as bacon, butter and cheese, would be similarly situated, and 
any occasional sale that he could make in the United States would 
be poor compensation for the losses incurred on account of the 
surfeit of the home market by American goods. 

"But in a still larger sense Canadians would stand to lose 
from the opening of the American markets, and that is very 
clearly put by Senator Beveridge in a speech recently delivered 
on reciprocity. He says: 'There must be reciprocity with Canada. 
Our tariff with the rest of the world does not apply to our northern 
neighbor. That policy already has driven American manufacturers 
across the Canadian borders, built vast plants with ^ American 
capital on Canadian soil, employing Canadian workingmen to 
supply trade. That capital should be kept at home to employ 
American workingmen to supply Canadian demand.' 

"Here we have another statement, this time from a dis- 
tinguished Senator, as to the effect of our present commercial 
relations with the United States, which President Taft is so anxious 
to change. Senator Beveridge says: 'The American tariff has 
driven American manufacturers across the Canadian border, built 
vast plants with American capital on Canadian soil,' and so on. 
Well, suppose it has (and we are told that American capital to the 
extent of $225,000,000 has been invested in Canada), is that a 
condition that we should seek to change? If the Americans change 
it of their own motion we cannot help it, but surely we should not 
encourage negotiations which would prevent the investment of 
capital from any quarter in Canada. If there is anything we need 
it is capital for our industries and farms and mines and factories. 
But notice another observation of the distinguished Senator. He 
says: 'That capital should be kept at home to employ American 
workmen to supply Canadian demand.' Well, let me tell Senator 
Beveridge that some time ago we allowed American workmen to 
supply Canadian demand, but if he ever hopes that this will happen 
again, then I very much mistake the Canadian sentiment of to-day. 
Americans now supply us with about $80,000,000 of manufactured 
goods. Even that is too much, but to increase it as Senator Bever- 
idge proposes would be treason to Canadian industries, the very 
thought of which makes one shrink from the consequences. 

Relations With Mother Country 

"Next let us consider the effect which reciprocity might 
have upon our business relations with the Mother Country. 
I leave out of consideration the presumption of many Americans 
that better trade relations with the United States might lead to 
political union. If the United States supplied the only market 
available for Canadians a treaty might have some political effect. 
But we are not dependent upon the United States in any sense for 
our markets, and if we make a treaty it is to be assumed that we 


will give a quid pro quo for any [favors we receive. Canadians 
surely would not be bribed by privileges for which they paid. 
But if trade and loyalty are to be considered together it is the 
Mother Country that has the first claims upon us. In the face of a 
duty of 25.7 per cent, on all the goods we sell to her she allows free 
access to her market, while the Americans exact a duty of forty-two 
per cent, for a similar privilege. The British market is also a 
steady market and not subjected to the fluctuations of the Chicago 
Corn Exchange or to the manipulation of speculators. It is not 
liable to be closed against us by the expiration of any treaty or by 
the manipulation of any trust. So long as the British Empire 
endures we may expect the British market to be accessible to us. 
If we have any favors to bestow that is the market with the strong- 
est claim, or if we anticipate any favors, such as a preference over 
foreign traders, it is in the British market that these favors are most 
likely to be obtained; we certainly would not look for them in 
the markets of the United States. One thing is certain, we 
cannot have reciprocity in wheat and British preference at the 
same time. 

What British Capital is Doing 

"Then, again, the British market has always been our base 
of supplies for every large national and industrial undertaking. 
It was with British capital that we built our railways and dug our 
canals. Nearly every large municipal work in Canada was carried 
out by loans in London. British capital is now building two trans- 
continental railways. It lights our streets, lays down our sewers, 
builds our waterworks and carries us from continent to continent. 
In the last five years, according to The Monetary Times, the 
sum of $605,453,856 has been invested in Canada, of which 
$97,500,000 has been invested in enterprises for the development 
of the country. Mr. Paish, an eminent London authority on 
finance, says that Canada has absorbed 300,000,000 pounds of 
British capital. 

'In considering further investments would the capitalists 
be more likely to decide for Canada if our trade were directed to 
the United States? for that is what reciprocity means. Just 
now the current is with us. If we proceed with the construction 
of the Georgian Bay Canal and the Hudson Bay Railway and the 
enlargement of the Welland Canal, not to say a variety of smaller 
enterprises, we will need two or three hundred millions in the next 
few years. Where are they to come from? Certainly not from the 
United States. Capital is sensitive. Let us not give to it a jolt 
in this important stage of national development. 

Effects on National Autonomy 

"Reciprocity would not help our national autonomy. A 
treaty means an obligation, and an obligation is subject to inter- 
pretations. The Washington Treaty contained several obligations. 


One was the free admission of fish into the United States. Inter- 
preted, it still meant free fish, but not the packages in which they 
were put up. The Washington Treaty allowed the use of certain 
American canals in exchange for the free use of Canadian canals. 
Interpreted it meant that the vessels or barges could pass only if 
they were unloaded when they entered American territory. Under 
a reciprocity treaty the two countries will no doubt undertake 
certain obligations which, possibly, when they come to be inter- 
preted may not mean what either party understood them to mean. 
But the obligation will continue during the life of the treaty, to 
the annoyance of one or both parties. 

"For my part I do not want to see any act of the Canadian 
people subject to interpretation at Washington. Only once in 
one hundred years did we get full justice in the interpretation 
of treaties affecting Canada, and that was before The Hague 
Tribunal a month ago. Our tariff act is now interpreted at 
Ottawa and any complaint from the United States or anywhere 
else is settled by Canadian officers. Right or wrong, we are our 
own masters. This would not be the case under a treaty. If we 
differed from the United States authorities what redress had we ? 
We might withdraw from the treaty, but that would mean irritation 
and possibly international ill-will. 

"And now where does my argument lead? Evidently to 
this conclusion: that Canada does not stand in any great need of a 
reciprocity treaty with the United States. Let us remember 
the epitaph of the man who, having lived to a good old age, thought 
medicine might be of some use, and so consulted a physician. He 
wrote his epitaph for the benefit of his fellow-men: 'I was well, I 
wanted to be better, and here I lie.' We are prosperous. Reciprocity 
might furnish a better market for the minor products of the farm 
here and there, but that is a small matter. 

Leave Well Alone 

"Let us not want to be better unless we are sure of the effects 
of the medicine. We are free from entanglements with the United 
States. We cannot be embarrassed by any amendments we make 
in our tariff, or if we are we can alter it ourselves. A treaty we 
cannot alter. We have taken the duty off binder twine and barbed 
wire and corn, and we have given the Americans a free list of goods 
under which they sold us last year $79,471,000 worth of merchandise 
on which there was no duty. If they are anxious for better trade 
relations with Canada, let them negotiate through their own Con- 
gress at Washington, and reduce their tariff as it may suit them, 
and let us reciprocate, if we deem it expedient, through the Parlia- 
ment of Canada. 

"Theirs is the first move on the commercial chessboard. 
We gave Great Britain a preference without any treaty or even 
negotiations: why should we treat the Americans with greater 
formality. At the same time, let us receive their representatives 
with the utmost courtesy. They have proposals to make, we 


want to know what they are. They should be made as openly 
as if they were submitted to Parliament. Public opinion should 
be heard upon them, and there the matter should rest until the 
United States Congress had given its sanction and approval to 
the action of its representatives. It would then be the duty of the 
Parliament to take similar action if in the public interest so to do. 
Only in this way can we preserve perfect freedom from the possible 
entanglements of a treaty which, no matter how carefully drafted, 
is liable to be misunderstood and misinterpreted. 

"An adjustment of the trade relations between the two coun- 
tries by the independent legislation of both rather than by treaty 
is the only safe course, as it affords publicity in the first instance 
and admits of perfect freedom of action thereafter. In the mean- 
time let Canada continue to sell her merchandise wherever she 
finds a market, and, trusting in that Providence which has always 
filled her barns with plenty and made her merchants princes in 
the land, let her not hazard her trade or her independence for 
expectations that may never be realized, nor place herself under 
obligations that might interfere with the fullest development of 
her industrial prosperity in the years to come."